On 28 Jan 2013, at 18:18, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, Chris-
>
> On 1/28/13 11:47 AM, Chris Mills wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Jan 2013, at 15:41, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Chris-
>>>
>>> On 1/28/13 10:09 AM, Chris Mills wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the comments guys!
>>>>
>>>> I have answered pretty much all of Mike's comments. I also
>>>> agreed entirely with PhistucK's comments, and have implemented a
>>>> page about CSS images at
>>>> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/concepts/css-images and
>>>> referenced it from my CSS property guide
>>>> (http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:CSS_property_guide). It
>>>> makes a lot of sense to cover concepts and other info that
>>>> applies to several properties, in separate pages.
>>>>
>>>> Just a few remaining questions relating to my guide, and the
>>>> process by which we will carry out the CSS properties work
>>>>
>>>> * [CHRIS - HAVE WE GOT A FACILITY FOR MARKING UP WHO IS ASSIGNED
>>>> TO EACH PROPERTY?]
>>>>
>>>> This is for Alex really - we ought to have a column in the
>>>> spreadsheet called "Assigned to" or something similar, where we
>>>> can mark which person is working on each property, so as not to
>>>> run into conflicts. Can I add such a column to the "Manual data"
>>>> spread, or would it be better to do it a different way?
>>>>
>>>> * [CHRIS - I AM REALLY NOT SURE WHERE TO GET THE BEST SUPPORT
>>>> DATA FROM, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO OLDER SUPPORT DATA. HTML5
>>>> AND CSS3 STUFF CAN BE GOTTEN FAIRLY WELL FROM CANIUSE.COM. BUT
>>>> WHAT ABOUT STUFF THAT DOESN'T LIST, SUCH AS N9 AND BLACKBERRY
>>>> BROWSER? NEED TO PROVIDE A BETTER GUIDE TO FINDING THIS DATA]
>>>>
>>>> Any tips from anyone on where to get reliable support data from,
>>>> for older/more mature CSS stuff? caniuse.com is fairly good for
>>>> most cutting edge HTML5/CSS3/etc stuff, but not older stuff.
>>>
>>> They aren't in an idea format for extraction yet, but you can
>>> always consult the CSS test suites:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/
>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/report/results.html
>>>
>> Thanks Doug - this is a pretty cool suggestion actually. Can you give
>> me some help on interpreting these test results, so I can write up a
>> mini guide? For example, if I search for "background" on this results
>> page I find tests called "background-image-001", "â€¦002" etc, and the
>> results in the trident column are 1 / . / . for pretty much all of
>> them. What does that mean?
>
> Like I said, it's not in the best format for reusing right now... over time, we will align and automate that.
>
> But for now, the 3 entries mean "pass / fail / uncertain". For each test, many people can run the test in different browsers and report their results... you might get different results for different versions of the browser, or even the same version on different OSes or configurations. So "1 / . / ." means 1 person reported that that browser passed the test, and nobody reported that it failed, or that the results were uncertain.
>
> But the big takeaway is:
> * green: browser supports it
> * light green: browser mostly supports it, but there are some ambiguities
> * red: browser fails it
> * pink: browser has some support, but not enough
cheers man, I'll implement this soon.
>
>
>>>> * The interactive examples: how are we going to handle these?
>>>> Dabblet won't be set up by the Berlin doc sprint,
>>>
>>> There is a chance that Dabblet will be installed, but not fully
>>> functional for inserting live examples into pages.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and expecting people to muck about creating and hosting their own
>>>> examples and embedding them in the page using IFrames will be a
>>>> big fail. As an interim solution, I thought just attaching the
>>>> examples to the relevant property page as a ZIP file would be ok,
>>>> but I've tried it, and MW doesn't allow ZIP files to be attached.
>>>> Suggestions?
>>>
>>> I love the idea of having live inline examples, but we really
>>> aren't there yet.
>>>
>>> What we could do is have people include the code snippets as
>>> formatted text, and work towards having live examples later.
>>
>> We could certainly do that, yes, good plan. Another possibility
>> perhaps would be to put the example on github, like this:
>>
>> https://github.com/chrisdavidmills/background-image
>>
>> Then we can publish the example directly, using that magical gh-pages
>> branch
>>
>> http://chrisdavidmills.github.com/background-image/background-image.html
>>
>> and accept pull requests from other contributors
>
> This seems like a maintenance nightmare. Don't we already have too many ways to handle feedback? Is it likely that the code samples will have to change so frequently?
You might be right. I wonder if we can put things on github that you can't do pull requests to, and then put a note to ask people to provide feedback via WPD instead? I guess this will be irrelevant anyway once we get the dabblet stuff set up.